I dunno if I'd agree with you that that's a bad photograph, if it is one. If one looks at the beautiful works of Christopher Dydyk, and other fine-art photographers, whose photographs are more like impressionist paintings than classical photography, one can see that the distortion of these boundaries is something that yields stylistically unconventional photographs which are conventionally aesthetically pleasing--or maybe that's just me.
Maybe in terms of good/bad you're talking about some skill level? Impressionist painting is a difficult skill and a photograph can be composed by one click, but that leaves the realm of aesthetics and approaches the topic from skill.
Or perhaps human value of the aesthetic is, in part, derived from skill; that is to say, perhaps due to supply/demand exchange value under the capitalist mode of production there is the construction of value such that perceived aesthetic value is correlated with price. Maybe this ties into the more postmodernist idea of sign value.
Just some thoughts.
The ability to provide that visual as a painting is rare I assume. The ability to create the very same visual to a perceiver with a good enough camera depends mainly on your ability to afford the camera. The visual provided to the viewer is practically indistinguishable. It seems that technology, especially AI, is going to greatly diminish the value of many skills. I wonder which ones will remain valuable?
I mean, one route--the most depressing of all--would be the absolute disintegration of the human proclivity to value art. I doubt this, though; even with the use of technology, innovations will always come and therefore be able to distance themselves from others and create sign value. Even if this sign value is produced by AI, it still exists (as much as sign value of art produced by another human). I suppose here is a situation where death of the author comes in handy!
And regarding cost/skill difference, I'd argue that in photography there's a different type of skill. A photographer has to find some scene such that the image has good composition and the likely uncountable other elements that go into a photograph (or at least an aesthetically pleasing one by common standards). Not to mention that the more money one invests in painting, the easier it is to paint. Paintbrushes, for instance, are a perfect example of this. Also, having all the colours you'd even need removes the skill element of colour mixing, too, so in a number of regards the ability to produce "good" paintings is contingent upon expensive tools, too. Both media have similar but incomparable elements of skill and, to some extent, cost (cost is comparable in the sense that it's a linear value that can be compared, but how that converts into art is dependent upon other things, also).
"the absolute disintegration of the human proclivity to value art" from any standard beyond pretentiousness is pretty far along already, wouldn't you say?